Would all agree the Clone Tool in Lightroom stinks, and the way it works is highly inferior to the clone tool in other software such as GIMP or Photoshop?

If you do not, in what way do you feel the convoluted and unweildy cloning function in Lightroom is superior to the intuitive and smooth working function of the cloning functions in the aforementioned other software?

Some more specific side questions:

How does one "set" the Clone tool to make the "clone"? i.e. After getting the two circles into position, how does one activate the actual clone function?

When cloning a large area, why can't one clone over a spot that was already cloned?

Why can't one change the size of the clone took once the two circles are formed?

GIMP and Photoshop are built for retouching where the actual pixels are changed - but that workflow involves additional files.

Lightroom's clone tool is designed for metadata-based removal of spots. It's not intended to become an extensive retouching tool. For its intended purpose, it works well, for example, it allows you to remove the dust spots in the sky in one photo and sync that across multiple photos, whereas in Photoshop you'd have to do each photo individually.

The clone 'activates' automatically as soon as you place the spots, and you can change the spot size after placing the spot by dragging the edge of the circle.

Lightroom does not have a clone tool. It has a spot removal tool. It is designed specifically for removing sensor dust spots, condensation bubbles and other small defects. It is not designed for other purposes. If you are using it as such, you will likely be disappointed.

The clone setting on the spot removal tool is a blending method-not a cloning operation. It is automatic when the tool is applied and relates to how the source spot is blended with the destination.

You can overlap spot removals but not in the way you might think. You have to create a spot removal adjacent to the existing and then move them to overlap.

GIMP and Photoshop are built for retouching where the actual pixels are changed - but that workflow involves additional files.

Lightroom's clone tool is designed for metadata-based removal of spots....for example, it allows you to remove the dust spots in the sky in one photo and sync that across multiple photos

Ah yes. LR doesn't change the original file. That does save the time and space required to make a new file.

Also, then, my expectations were apparently misplaced. I see now it's not intended to replace whole detailed sections of an area like GIMP or PS, or apparently Aperture (which I never tried.) No wonder it was giving me fits.

Thanks.

As far as how it works, it seems like hit or miss as to when it "takes" that may be because I was trying to work on too complex an area. I was trying to complete remove a garbage pail and replace it with a tree trunk and grass and a curb and street. I'll give it another chance for more simple tasks like removing sensor dust or a skin blemish.

While I must agree that the Spot Removal tool was not designed to do more than rudimentary dust removal, I would think it would be very desireable by all Lightroom users to b eable to accomplish at least minor retouching of images within the app rather than being forced to create a derivative file for each image to accomplish the task in another app outside of lightroom.

Unfortunately, Adobe has been either unwilling or incapable of offering such a feature for Lightroom users ... Though Apple has proven it is not impossible as the Retouching Brush in Aperture 3 does a really good job at dealing with blemishes, lines and stray hair ... without resorting to creating additional files to clutter up hard drives so other apps can get the job done ... very handy in that respect ...

Tom Hogarty was interviewed recently by the NAPP folks on this subject and indicated Adobe's awareness of the user base's desire for such a feature. I don't have a link to the video but his remarks are worth the search and a quick listen to exactly what he says.

Yes, Rikk ... the feature has been eagerly sought after and well supported ... on the feedback forum ... for over a year now ... there have been several features/improvements with much less support and votes on the feedback forum that have been implemented, this one seems to take a back seat ...

However, Aperture has had the feature available for use for over two years ... I think Tom Hogarty is a good guy and has done a very good job ... but I also think it takes much more than good intentions along the way ... results will always trump good intentions ... I don't think it is unfair or inappropriate to expect results ...

Yep, it's a very popular request, but it'll be in the camera raw pipeline, so primarily down to the camera raw team to implement. And they've had their hands full with PV2012 for more than a year. I wouldn't be surprised to see it make a future version, but we'd probably appreciate them fine tuning the performance of PV2012 before they dive too deeply into a major new feature, no?

In the Lightroom 4 Luminous Landscape videos, Jeff Schewe hinted pretty strongly that there was something coming along these lines and it sounded more like the "months" type timeframe than the "years." He's not so good at keeping secrets, I figure ;-)

Yes it would be awesome if LR and ACR had the same ability to clone/heal as Photoshop but it is a different tool and I’m not sure it is even possible to alter it to do what everyone wants. Keep in mind that LR/ACR are instruction based (parametric) editors. They have advantages that Photoshop lacks but you see the disadvantages in terms of precise and numerous pixel editing functionality. This is where Photoshop is king. The request, while perfectly rational, is a bit like requsting that Photoshop handle page layout like InDesign.

Let’s assume for a second that given unlimited engineering resources, the LR team could produce the same quality of cloning as Photoshop but at the expense of something like PV2012. Would that be worthwhile? Personally I’d say no way. I’d rather have best in class raw rendering and then move to Photoshop for the (maybe necessary) precise pixel editing it has evolved over the years to provide. PS is after all a precise pixel editor.

Yep, it's a very popular request, but it'll be in the camera raw pipeline, so primarily down to the camera raw team to implement. And they've had their hands full with PV2012 for more than a year. I wouldn't be surprised to see it make a future version, but we'd probably appreciate them fine tuning the performance of PV2012 before they dive too deeply into a major new feature, no?

Well ... what I would have rather seen is that maybe the Camera Raw team would have spent even more time on pv2012 before it was released ... then they propbaly would not have been behind the eight-ball the past several months frantically correcting so many issues ... It is not the user's fault that pv2012 proved to be so problematic ... the users did not design or code the product ... yet it is the users who suffer from the absence of the feature in question ...

... and Rodney .... I don't think that Adobe suffers from any concern about not having unlimited engineering resources ... for if resources were truly a major concern ... why would they have reduced the cost of the full version of Lightroom by 50%? ... Sure more users may adopt Lr due to the price drop ... but won't that also bring a dramatic increase in requests for what you may consider unnecessary or undesirable features as the one we are discussing here? .... More users will always bring more voices for feature requests ... sooner or later developers either have to respond to those requests or risk a dwindling user base to support the product ... also consider these new throngs of users may not be so willing to wait as patiently for simple features as so many regulars on this forum recommend ... or worse yet, ask them to drop the idea altogether ... after all these new users will have far less invested and it would be quite easy to opt out vs. those of us who have been here for the duration ... then where will the resources be found?

Well ... what I would have rather seen is that maybe the Camera Raw team would have spent even more time on pv2012 before it was released ... then they propbaly would not have been behind the eight-ball the past several months frantically correcting so many issues ...

What issues? I’d assume they would have to affected LR too since it’s the same code (for 2012).

Butch_M wrote:

... and Rodney .... I don't think that Adobe suffers from any concern about not having unlimited engineering resources ... for if resources were truly a major concern ... why would they have reduced the cost of the full version of Lightroom by 50%?

I’m a partner in a software company but that doesn’t mean I have any idea what motivates Adobe to price their products as they do. Maybe you are in the software business as well. Maybe you have a better idea why Adobe prices their software as they do. Short of that, I don’t see how the pricing changes have anything to do with engineering resources or the choices the team makes in terms of where they will concentrate their efforts.

Every single customer could make the same request, I don’t know if that makes the engineering possible. If everyone wanted LR to read and handle Excel spreadsheets, does that mean the task is possible to enginner? I suspect only an Adobe engineer would know for sure, the rest of us are just speculating. The later is a waste of time, the former is very unlikely to occur.

What issues? I’d assume they would have to affected LR too since it’s the same code (for 2012).

Why the very same issue Victoria referred to ... specifically: "but we'd probably appreciate them fine tuning the performance of PV2012 before they dive too deeply into a major new feature, no?" ... there were more than a few users who had extreme performance issues and sluggish behavior with pv2012 ... hence the two RC versions of Lr 4.1 ...

I don't profess to know for sure if all that we request of Adobe is an engineering possibility ... If proper cloning or healing in Lr/ACR is inded impossible ... perhaps they shoud publically state as much and remove all doubt ... then we users won't have to waste our own valuable resources making pointless requests ...

When it takes not one but two RC versions spaning a two month period, to get things right (or are you of the opinion that the good folks on the Lightroom team were basking by the pool during that period?) ... this after about 300,000 folks participated in the public beta (those are Adobe's numbers, not mine) ... I would call that problematic when it takes that much effort to get it right ... and if you peruse the discussion about sub-par performance of Lr4 ... you will discover that many of those folks were not naive first-time users employing antique hardware and outdated software ... the users having issues were listing the latest and greatest hardware and OS versions ... not old corrupted junk ....

Please do remember .. Victoria brought up the fact that the team is quite too busy enhanceing the the performance of pv2012 to be concerned with new feature requests ... not I ...

I'm sorry that you are disappointed that I am not on the Adobeissoperfecttheycan'tpossiblyeverdoanythingwrong bandwagon ... once again, it's the users who disagree with the MVP's and Champ's on this forum that are wrong ...

Yep ... I read that entry on Matt's blog back on Jan 17 when he posted it (I follow his blog on a regualr basis, though with much lower expectations over the past several months) ... while the info shared is interesting, I don't find the comments it contains does much for my confidence level when it comes down to the future of Lightroom ... it seems as though, all too often, the folks in charge are eager to place limitations upon themselves.

I don't think we need all the bells, buzzers and whistles that is Photoshop .. just to have some simple retouching tools in Lightroom ... If I need Ps ... I can use it ... it would just be so nice to be able to eliminate a single strand of hair from a subjects cheek without having to create yet another 40-50MB derrivative file for a 10 second job in Ps ...

The linked video pretty much says it all in the first 45 seconds ... and this feature has been available in Aperture 3 since at least Feb. 9, 2010 ... yes, I do understand it is quite unfair to make the comparison as Apple usually cheats to get the results, However the feature is available, works efficiently and has been around for two years ... A retouching/cloning tool in a RAW workflow does not have to be as extravagant as all the intricate possibilities in found in Photoshop ... It just has to be more than good intentions and possibilities ...

What was important was not Matt's characterization of what Tom said but rather the actual comments made by Tom during his video interview. The video (now part of Kelby Training) is the meat of the conversation. It needs to be viewed to gain an appreciation of what is going on. Did you see the video?

What Aperture does or doesn't do is largely irrelevant to this conversation as far as I am concerned. As a single-platform solution it is only viable to that precentage of computer users that use a Mac environment. Everytime I read a comment saying "Aperture can do ..." I think of the workshops I teach and how PCs outnumbered Macs by a 4-1 over the last three classes. Rare is the occasion when Mac users are 50% of the audience. Now, I know I am opening up the flood gates for those who say that Macs are 5 out of 10 to 9 out of 10, or what ever number they chose, of the photographers they know but that isn't the point. Aperture is simply not relevant for a large segment of the working population. What it can do is always balanced by what it cannot. The same is true of any software.

The original point of this thread was the proposal that Lightroom's clone tool "stinks" and do we agree. I grant that its Spot Removal tool in brush mode=clone is not a viable cloning tool-nor should it be construed or used as such. It serves the purpose well for which it was intended.

Aperture is simply not relevant for a large segment of the working population. What it can do is always balanced by what it cannot. The same is true of any software.

Except of course for Lightroom ... it's perfect!

Rikk Flohr wrote:

Did you see the video?

Yes, I watched it months ago. My opinion and expectations have not improved with time (or did I miss the magic spell used to console my concerns?) ... as the information imparted in the video has not changed. I find no comfort in re-visiting the comments. I am no more confident that I will see results on this and many other issues I find with Lightroom than I did six months ago.

Rikk Flohr wrote:

What Aperture does or doesn't do is largely irrelevant to this conversation as far as I am concerned.

Does having your head in the sand helps you to grow and flourish beyond your own little environ?

I shared my link, not in the hopes of converting anyone to Apple, Aperture or OS X ... but to broaden your scope of what may be possible. I do not think Aperture is perfect ... but for those of us who have actually taken a look at both Lr and A3 (or any other option not created by Adobe) ... it's only natural to draw comparisons ... I find having as much information at my disposal isn't an annoyance ... or should I adopt an "ignorance is bliss" state of mind to be found more credible on this forum?

Rikk Flohr wrote:

Everytime I read a comment saying "Aperture can do ..." I think of the workshops I teach and how PCs outnumbered Macs by a 4-1 over the last three classes. Rare is the occasion when Mac users are 50% of the audience.

Everytime I see the first strike retort that Aperture users are of such an insignificant quantity to be concerned with ... I think of how short sighted some of the folks I share this planet with can be. In the circle of about a dozen professional photographers I work around, for and with in the course of a year ... only one shoots Canon equipment ... Based on that little nugget, should I tell him he is insignificant and unworthy in my realm and therefore he should never mention the positive attributes of his equipment? Afterall, by the numbers I see, he is irrelevant. We are going by the numbers we see in our own little world ... right?

I didn't have any idea what was capable in Aperture until about a year ago. I didn't explore it as an option earlier because, like you, I thought it was somehow beneath me. It was in fact the shortcomings of Lightroom that steered me toward Aperture 3 ... While it does indeed fall short in some areas, in my exploration, I discovered many positive functions and capabilities. Unlike you, I chose not to ignore those valid points and did not attempt to convince myself that less options are better for my interests.

Don't you find it at least a teency weency bit intriguing that the minisule, inconsequential number of Mac users that also use Aperture 3, were not so insignificant an amount of users for Apple to not offer a retouching/cloning option, more than twice as many supported cameras for tethering, a slideshow option that has a true timeline, use of multiple audio tracks, inclusion of video clips in slideshows, a book feature that allows custom page sizes on the fly? ... to name only a few ... Yet the vast counless multitude of Lightroom users in the world (including you and I) have no such options. How about the meat in that realization? ...

I guess you are right ... for those of us who have expectations beyond the status quo for Lightroom, we probably should just shut up and fade away ... for our expectations are indeed unreasonable and without merit ... we're truly insignificant in the eyes of at least our fellow Lightroom users and possibly Adobe as well ...

Please do remember .. Victoria brought up the fact that the team is quite too busy enhanceing the the performance of pv2012 to be concerned with new feature requests ... not I ...

I said "we'd probably appreciate them fine tuning the performance of PV2012 before they dive too deeply into a major new feature." Are you disagreeing with that? Would you rather they stopped improving the performance of the main code to work on another major feature? There is always finetuning to be done, and when such a large amount of the code is new, that takes time. I seem to remember the same being true of 1.0, 2.0, 3.0.... Yes, there are still some issues that need to be worked out.

I don't have a problem with being honest about Lightroom's strengths and weaknesses. I'm very familiar with both! It's not perfect. But it wouldn't be a commercially viable program if they had to keep it off the shelves until it was perfect - and it's working well for a lot of people. I wouldn't be so naive to say it's working perfectly for everyone, but if you read threads like this, you'd get the idea that it's a complete disaster for everyone, which would also be a naive judgement.

There's something I don't understand though. If people are not happy with Lightroom 4's features, why are they not using something else? If they're not happy with the performance of Lightroom 4, why buy it? There's a free trial and each one of us has the option to vote with our credit cards.

There's nothing wrong with pushing Adobe to make Lightroom the best it can be. That's a good thing. I do it too. But there's a big difference between making positive feature requests, offering constructive criticism and trying to get to the root of problems vs. Adobe-bashing and arguing on every thread. This is a user to user forum. You're not talking to Adobe. Even the MVP's and Champs, that you mentioned Butch, are unpaid volunteers offering their own time freely to help other users. So please don't be too upset when we get a little worn listening to the same arguments from the same people over and over again. We want to help people get the best out of the program that Adobe have made available for sale, not get bashed for the decisions they've made.

Please do remember .. Victoria brought up the fact that the team is quite too busy enhanceing the the performance of pv2012 to be concerned with new feature requests ... not I ...

I said "we'd probably appreciate them fine tuning the performance of PV2012 before they dive too deeply into a major new feature." Are you disagreeing with that?

He probably will. For a fellow who isn’t an Adobe employee, an LR alpha or pre-release tester, the guy sure wants us to believe he understands software development inside of Adobe. And he’s so rude (Does having your head in the sand helps you to grow and flourish beyond your own little environ?).

This idea that: “the Camera Raw team would have spent even more time on pv2012 before it was released ... then they propbaly would not have been behind the eight-ball the past several months frantically correcting so many issues ... It is not the user's fault that pv2012 proved to be so problematic ... the users did not design or code the product ... yet it is the users who suffer from the absence of the feature in question ...“ or “it takes not one but two RC versions spaning a two month period, to get things right“ (Mr. Butch should read the release notes) equates into what you wrote shows how out of touch his comments are.

We’ve got a troll who’s best ignored gang.

Victoria Bampton wrote:

I don't have a problem with being honest about Lightroom's strengths and weaknesses. I'm very familiar with both! It's not perfect.

Indeed, let’s talk about preview performance issues.

The question was: Would all agree the Clone Tool in Lightroom stinks? Many posted no. Time to move on.

There's something I don't understand though. If people are not happy with Lightroom 4's features, why are they not using something else? If they're not happy with the performance of Lightroom 4, why buy it? There's a free trial and each one of us has the option to vote with our credit cards.

Well even you may at times assume too much. I have trialed, rc'd, beta tested ... and ... voted with my credit card ... That however, doesn't mean I still don't expect more from Lightroom or that I don't have a vested interest in it's future ... if I truly didn't care and only wanted to cause trouble, I woulnd't venture to this forum.

I do use Aperture 3 in my work ... more and more with each passing day (shouldn't that be a concern for Adobe) ... not out of desire ... because it allows me to accomplish tasks that Lightroom is still incapable of getting done. I would very much much prefer that Lightroom would be all that I need ... but don't expect me to silently consume the Adobe pablum any longer ...

I first ventured forth with Lightroom in 2006 when the first public beta was offered ... (remember it was Mac only at that time? You know, that insignificant, irrelevant platform mentioned by Rikk.) ... I found the whole concept to be a marvelous step forward ... a true breath of fresh air ... imagine, getting so much accomplished with my RAW files in a very thoughful and capable workflow design ... I bought in, hook, line and sinker, both figuratively and monetarily. Since then I have dutifully participated in each and every public beta, RC and trial offered ... up to and including the official release of Lr 4.1. Though I have yet to purchase Lr 4.x as I am very disappointed with what is offered. It isn't performance issues holding me back ... It's not that I don't find pv2012 very satisfying ... it is the total absence of some key features and the incompleteness of others. I fully understand that with new software there will be issues that need addressed. I can handle unintentional miscues ... however, I find the total lack of some options and/or the incompleteness of others and complete modules totally ignored for several versions, to be a strong consideration in my buying decisions.

I was happy as a lark working blissfully with each new iteration of Lightroom and was very content with what I had been using. Then a friend recommended I take a look at Aperture last year when I mentioned I wished Lightroom had a book feature. At the time, I thought Aperture was only a hapless tool for rank amateures ... then I idscovered I didn't have to use their, nameless, anonymous book printer ... I could actually create custom page sizes right within the app then export the finished book to PDF, jpeg or even tiff ... whatever my printing vendors would desire ... Imagine my dismay ... that as yet, I can't, by any means, create custom page sizes in the Lightroom 4 Book module ... Since then I have been using Aperture 3 for all my book production, Slideshows, tethering and other work that Lightroom can't accomplish ... I'm not so infatuated with Lightroom to accept whatever is offered and deem it superior simply on face value. Then assure other users that what we have is all that can be expected and we should accept our fate willingly.

I was even told by you in another thread that mentioning the fact that Aperture 3 could be used to shoot thethered with the Nikon D4, D800 and the Canon 5D Mk III was a totally unfair comparrison ... the need for a level playing field and something about planes and helicopters as I recall ... I was even told by another very helpful "volunteer" that it was basically my own stupidity for buying a camera that was not on the approved list and I should not be complaining as it was my fault Lightroom did not support my camera for tethering ... totally ignoring the fact my camera purchase was based on replacing stolen equipment, not Adobe's timeline for tethering support .... I was told by another so-called helpful user, that so few folks use the thethering feature that I should be content that any cameras are supported by Lightroom at all. While the sad fact remains, it really is not the fault of Nikon or Canon that Adobe can't yet support those cameras ... because Apple did so without their assistance or the the often referred to need for an updated SDK ... The fact remains that over twice as many cameras are supported in Aperture for tethering ... though, apparently it seems tolerable to ignore that fact here .... but I digress ...

Then here in this thread, because I mentioned a comparison of Lightroom with Aperture about the differences in features in relation to cloning/healing ... I'm told such a comparison is rendered irrelevant purely based upon the numbers of users of the Apple platform as it pertains to a single individual's observations ... not the fact that the feature actually exists elsewhere, actually works ... and appears not to be an engineering impossibility ... but because I had the audacity to mention it here contradicting one of the so helpful volunteer members of the "gang" ...

The good folks here can imply (or state it flat out) that my concerns and comments are unfair, stupid, irrelevent, insonsequential or best yet ... trolling ... and I am to ignore where Lightroom falls short of the mark ... I may not be an Alpha tester. I may not be an Adobe employee ... and ... I may indeed be "out of touch" on some issues ... but you can't find fault with the fact that ... I can do more than dust speck removal using my RAW images without resorting to Ps, I can create custom page sizes for photo books and refernce my RAW files directly without resorting to ID and derivative files ... I can shoot tethered with a D4 ... I am aloso quite disappointed that we all can't use Lightroom to do so ...

So it seems we are back to the same inevitable end ... if you can't dispell the message ... attack the messenger. That will surely help Lightroom, and it's users advance forward.

Well it didn't take long for Andrew Rodney to be proved right, did it? Look, Butch_M, it's taken your series of irritating posts to bring me out of 'lurker mode' to briefly respond (I like to read the queries and see if I can answer them as well as the experts here can, without looking first!)

You appear to be living in a personal 'Age of Entitlement', where any missing features in a piece of software are evidence of incompetence on behalf of Adobe and perhaps a personal vendetta by their engineers to make your life difficult (and I count 2 issues - custom page sizes in the book module, and tethering for a specific camera model) - seriously, is that it? (I'm not counting the cloning tool issue, as the tool in Lr is not intended to achieve the same effect as in Ps, as has been demonstrated in the above responses). And as for your bizarre critique of Adobe's software development provcess - ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

Can I respectfully suggest that, now you have had your say on Adobe in general and LIghtroom in particular, that you take your new-found enthusiasm for Aperture and go over to the support forums for that product?

And can we please, please, please now let this zombie thread die peacefully??

You appear to be living in a personal 'Age of Entitlement', where any missing features in a piece of software are evidence of incompetence on behalf of Adobe and perhaps a personal vendetta by their engineers to make your life difficult ...

Nothing could be further from the truth ... my my main issue in this thread is the intolerance of my fellow users here when I make comparisons and they claim those comparisons are inconsequential or irrelavant ... and the discovery that all I had been told in the past may not have been so true as far as the patented answers as to why Adobe can't do certain things ... I do not think that that anyone at Adobe is necessarily incompetent ... some bad decisions ... vague promises about potential solutions ... you betchya ... even the most successful folks in their fields can lay claim to errors in judgment ... what my recent "enlightenment" has taught me ... is to seriously question if the folks at Adobe in general, and the folks working on Lightroom in particular continue to have my best interests first and foremost ... and how the repercussions of the decisions made by those folks will affect my daily workflow. You don't ever ponder such? I have blind faith in some areas of my life ... software development ... not so much ...

huw_j wrote:

Can I respectfully suggest that, now you have had your say on Adobe in general and LIghtroom in particular, that you take your new-found enthusiasm for Aperture and go over to the support forums for that product?

Though you presented your request using the term respectfully ... was it really offered thusly? Or was it was it just a slightly more polite version of "love it or leave it" retort? Either way, thank you for at least being polite ...

I use Lghtroom to do the things I used to do in my darkroom and my office. Photoshop fulfils the role that the art department used to do in my employed days.

For me, Lghtroom is already becoming a bit bloated and I don't want to see it becoming more so by adding functions outside of its (in my opinion) core role. Thus, I don't want LR to overlap PS too much.

Once clone stamp is added, there will be cries of 'why can't we have layers?' etc. if Photoshop functionality is to be added to Lightroom, I would like it to be in the form of a plugin, preferably bought separately and in the form of another module, Library-Develop-Art editor, for example.

In fact, I'd like the modules of the present LR to be available in plugin/ buy if required form too. Library and Develop are all I need, really.

It would really help if the forum had an "ignore user" facility. It ticks me off royally that certain folk are allowed to rant - and deliberately to provoke - to their heart's content, then to parse any disagreement as an ad hominem attack: and if you react to their provocation, the forum police are on your back quicksmart.

Being able to block users would solve that. Call it a feature request...

Back on topic, I'm with glugglug. I've never seen Lr as being the place for heavy duty cloning, partly because (to my mind) it's not the place for it; and partly because I've already got software that does a great job of cloning.

And so it will go on. Like him (again!) I only use the Library and Develop modules, and an ideal Lr for me would be stripped down considerably from what it is now, not further bloated with "features" that I've already got in other software.

I feel the word "troll" was rather unfair in this context. OK, Butch has gone on a bit, but his criticisms are very specific and have justification. Forget Aperture - LR's Book and Slideshow aren't where we expect them to be in 2012, and the lack of a retouching tool is a gap that the dust spotting tool doesn't really fill.

But before anyone wheels out the usually-cheap claim of bloat, I suggest they have a quick look at the retouching brush in Aperture. If that's not be possible (Aperture's big downfall is being limited to just one brand of computer) I'll describe it in Photoshop terms as a combination of the clone stamp where you alt-click a source area and the spotting tool which paints the object you want to remove. You don't have to trust my opinion but it works quickly and does the job well - much better than I expected - and it feels a very natural part of this kind of program.

As for the pay-per-module distraction. please please no. It's integral to the Lightroom concept that it brings these functions together, and that's a big part of its success.

Well I didn't use the word "troll" myself, but - again - this is exactly the kind of reaction that results from people being allowed to provoke and provoke and provoke without consequence.

As to the "paid for" module notion, no, I'm not endorsing that idea myself, but I understand the sentiment - a modular, expansible, "buy what you need" converter would be interesting, and would allow for a neat solution to "why does Lr do/not do this thing..?" discussions.

If I want to remove a twig, or a piece of litter, or a stray hair..., I:

* spend a long while arranging little dust spot circles to do it, or

* figure: to heck with it, or

* edit using NX2, or Photoshop, thus creating a huge tiff, or breaking the non-destructive workflow by way of a compressed jpeg stacked on top.

I would prefer to use Photoshop for creative effects, on comparatively fewer photos, not small distraction removal on what would be a larger set of photos. And, seeing as it's the #1 request for Lightroom, of all time, by far, I am clearly in the overwhelming majority.

PS - Bloat-schmoat: 0% of the cpu would be consumed for photos that don't have distractions removed. OK, it would increase the download size a bit: you got me there...

Personally, everything I convert in Lr (or in Capture One, or in RawTherapee, or in AfterShot Pro, or...) becomes a 16 bit tiff for further work in Photoshop - my workflow relies on plugins that Photoshop runs and Lr doesn't - so for me there's simply no case for comprehensive cloning funcionality in Lr. That's what Photoshop is for.

Unless a given user considers that Lr is intended as a one-stop "From Raw-To-End-Result" solution (that's open to debate, and a case can be made either way), I'd argue that glugglug's perspective (and mine) are perfectly valid.

I know many can use Lr as an end-to-end solution, and the presence of things like softproofing, a great print module, book creation and web modules provide a counter-argument to my comments above (although it might also be argued that they make most sense of all as a logical fall-out from Lr's DAM function).

But I certainly don't see Lr as being intended as an end-to-end solution - the lack of layers, 8bf plugin support and yes, things like comprehensive cloning tools, tell me it's not - in which case it might be said that our use cases are closer to the intended use model for Lr; and that as a result, demands for all-singing cloning are (in its current incarnation at least) unreasonable in the context of what Lr is apparently about.

Let's not forget either that the more Lr can do, the less need there will be for people to shell out large lumps of cash on Photoshop: so being realistic about it, there seems to be very little business incentive for Adobe to make Lr into a Photoshop killer,